Shady A Rehim1, Stephanie DeMoor1, Richard Olmsted2, Daniel L Dent2, Jessica Parker-Raley3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas. 2. University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas. 3. Division of Trauma, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas. Electronic address: raley@uthscsa.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospital action teams comprise interdisciplinary health care providers working simultaneously to treat critically ill patients. Assessments designed to evaluate communication effectiveness or "nontechnical" performance of these teams are essential to minimize medical errors and improve team productivity. Although multiple communication tools are available, the characteristics and psychometric validity of these instruments have yet to be systematically compared. OBJECTIVE: To identify assessments used to evaluate the communication or "nontechnical" performance of hospital action teams and summarize evidence to develop and validate these instruments. METHOD: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed database to identify original articles related to assessment of communication skills in teams working in acute care medicine not exclusive to emergency room, operating room, prehospital air and ground transport, or code blue/rapid response resuscitations. RESULTS: Ten communication assessment tools were identified. Six tools (60%) were designed to measure communication performance of the whole team, whereas 4 tools (40%) were created to assess individual team member's communication skills. Regardless of the type of analysis, the most commonly assessed behavior domains were Leadership, Teamwork, Communication, and Situation awareness. Only 1 of 16 articles describing a particular communication assessment tool reported all the validation criteria, other authors underreported efforts to validate their instruments. CONCLUSION: A number of tools designed to measure the communication or "nontechnical" performance of hospital action teams are available. Unfortunately, limited reported validity evidence may hamper the utility of these tools in actual clinical practice until further validation studies are performed.
BACKGROUND: Hospital action teams comprise interdisciplinary health care providers working simultaneously to treat critically illpatients. Assessments designed to evaluate communication effectiveness or "nontechnical" performance of these teams are essential to minimize medical errors and improve team productivity. Although multiple communication tools are available, the characteristics and psychometric validity of these instruments have yet to be systematically compared. OBJECTIVE: To identify assessments used to evaluate the communication or "nontechnical" performance of hospital action teams and summarize evidence to develop and validate these instruments. METHOD: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed database to identify original articles related to assessment of communication skills in teams working in acute care medicine not exclusive to emergency room, operating room, prehospital air and ground transport, or code blue/rapid response resuscitations. RESULTS: Ten communication assessment tools were identified. Six tools (60%) were designed to measure communication performance of the whole team, whereas 4 tools (40%) were created to assess individual team member's communication skills. Regardless of the type of analysis, the most commonly assessed behavior domains were Leadership, Teamwork, Communication, and Situation awareness. Only 1 of 16 articles describing a particular communication assessment tool reported all the validation criteria, other authors underreported efforts to validate their instruments. CONCLUSION: A number of tools designed to measure the communication or "nontechnical" performance of hospital action teams are available. Unfortunately, limited reported validity evidence may hamper the utility of these tools in actual clinical practice until further validation studies are performed.
Authors: Tehnaz P Boyle; Julianne N Dugas; James Liu; Stephanie N Stapleton; Ron Medzon; Barbara M Walsh; Pamela Corey; Leonard Shubitowski; John R Horne; Richard O'Connell; Graham Williams; Kerrie P Nelson; Vinay M Nadkarni; Carlos A Camargo; James A Feldman Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 2.690